Rapture: The End-Times Error That Leaves the Bible Behind (15 page)

The little horn is accused of attempting “to change the times and the law” (7:25). This was an attack on the very essence of biblical Judaism: the Law and the Prophets. Nero’s disdain for the Law of Moses has been well-documented. And of course, the Law forbade the worship of the emperor.

Even the description of the small horn uprooting three others can be found in the career of Nero. Daniel writes, “There came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots” (7:8). Later Daniel learns that the three uprooted horns were of royal lineage. “He shall be different from the former ones and shall put down three kings” (7:24). The Hebrew word used here for
kings
is
melek
. The most common translation is “king,” but it also can be translated as “royal” (Gen. 49:20; 1 Kings 10:13; Dan. 6:7).

Nero’s life fits this description like a glove. His mother, Agrippina, married the emperor Claudius shortly after Nero was born. At a young age, Nero married his stepsister, Octavia, daughter of Claudius. Agrippina persuaded Claudius to favor this new son-in-law, Nero, as his successor over his own blood son, Britannicus. After becoming emperor, Nero murdered all three of these powerful relatives, whom he saw as rivals. These murders fulfill the vision of the three royal horns that “were plucked up by the roots” (7:8).

Daniel’s vision even accurately predicts the death of Nero, who reigned until 68 A.D. During that year, the army, and finally even the Praetorian Guard, rose in rebellion against him. He fled, and when he eventually committed suicide, the dynasty that began with Caesar Augustus died with him. General Vespasian, a man outside of Nero’s line, became the next emperor (after a devastating interregnum that witnessed three would-be emperors futilely battling for the throne). Vespasian was not even an aristocrat by birth. Nero and the imperial dynasty from which he came never rose to power in Rome again. “His dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end” (7:26).

Daniel’s symbolic use of the horns alternates between being a symbol of the ten provinces of the empire and being a symbol of specific people. This type of dualistic imagery in apocalyptic imagery is quite common (GR4).

Daniel’s vision continues with more details concerning the battle strategy of the beasts. “This horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them” (7:21). The leader of the fourth kingdom, Rome, will persecute God’s people.

This is the first reference we have to what we will later label the Great Tribulation. This fierce and sustained trial of the Church started when the little horn, Nero, needed a scapegoat for the fire that ravaged the city of Rome. This state-sponsored persecution continued for about three years, until Nero’s attention was diverted by the Jewish-Roman War. Nero was the first in a succession of ten Caesars who persecuted the Church with varying intensity (
TBR
, 37).

Amazingly, we are even told the length of time during which the little horn will wage war against “the law.” It will be “for a time, two times, and half a time” (7:25). These times are meant to be added together: one year, plus two years, plus half a year. This is an ancient way of saying three and a half years.

That coincides precisely with events in the first century. Jewish Zealots burned the Roman ruler’s palace, slaughtered the garrison of Roman soldiers, killed the high priest Ananias and burned his palace, and put an end to the morning and evening sacrifices for Caesar in the Temple. In response, the Roman general Cestius marched on Jerusalem and burned much of the city. Yet his expedition against Jerusalem was a disaster for Rome, and he lost six thousand soldiers in his retreat.

Caesar Nero was outraged and declared war against Jerusalem in February of 67 A.D. General Vespasian was dispatched at the head of a Roman army. This was the beginning of the Jewish-Roman War. The “little horn” who had been making “war with the saints,” even to the point of wearing “out the saints of the Most High,” now turned his wrath on “the law” that forbade worship of him (7:21, 25). That war upon “the times and the law” lasted three and a half years.

By April of 70 A.D., the son of Vespasian, General Titus, had tightened the noose of the final siege of Jerusalem. The Roman army had even come from the north, just as Ezekiel 38 and 39 had predicted.

In August of 70 A.D., the Temple of Jerusalem fell before the Roman army of Titus. The Temple was torched and systematically dismantled, piece by piece. This destruction of the Temple was the end of biblical Judaism, as even rabbis of today will attest (
BET
, 154). Their exclusive power to share God with the nations was gone forever with the destruction of the Temple (Isa. 2:2–5, 56).

Just as Daniel had predicted, Nero declared war in February of 67 A.D., and Jerusalem’s Temple fell in August of 70 A.D. Count the months. The Jewish-Roman War lasted forty-two months, precisely three and a half years. Jerusalem was to “be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.”

We can understand the modernist’s desire to date the writing of this vision late and then apply this prophecy to Antiochus! (But remember GR1.) Daniel has been given an amazing amount of detail concerning the “how” of the establishment of God’s kingdom here on earth. We knew from the first statue vision that it would occur during the time of the Roman Empire. Now we know that he predicted some of the specific events surrounding the life and reign of Nero Caesar. This includes his murder of his rivals, his egomania, his blasphemy, and his hatred for the law of God. Most amazing, though, Daniel predicted that the Jewish-Roman War would last for three and a half years.

How do rapturists treat this section? They ignore the clear and convincing fulfillment of this vision during the fourth empire of Rome. Instead, they postulate that presumptuous parenthesis, inserting two thousand years between the beast and the beast’s horns. They then try to apply all of these prophecies concerning Nero to the future antichrist spoken of elsewhere in the Bible.

Now the vision gets really interesting. Some claim that this part of this vision is a riddle riddled with riddles. Daniel tells us that “with the clouds of Heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His Kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13–14).

To solve this riddle, we will approach it like a reporter. We will attempt to answer who, what, where, when, and why.

The
who
question is relatively simple. There are two persons mentioned. Based on details earlier in the vision, it is generally agreed that the “Ancient of Days” is God the Father.

We can be quite certain that the “son of man” is the Messiah, because Jesus referred to Himself as the “Son of man.” If you are reading this book, you probably agree that Jesus was the promised Messiah. During His trial before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious leaders of Jerusalem, Jesus paraphrased these very verses from Daniel and applied them to Himself (Matt. 26:64).

The high priest understood this to mean that Jesus viewed Himself as the Messiah of Daniel, and so he tore his robe and accused Jesus of blasphemy. In one aspect, the high priest was correct: that is exactly what Jesus was claiming.

Now that we know the two persons involved,
what
is being described? A simple question will help us to clarify our thinking. In Daniel, when the “Son of man” comes, in what direction will He be traveling? In other words, when Daniel describes the Son coming with the clouds of Heaven to be given dominion and glory and kingdom, is He coming toward Jerusalem or the Mount of Olives?

This seems to be the automatic assumption of many commentators, including rapturists, which means this prophecy must refer to either the first or the second advent. But this is an unwarranted assumption that contradicts the text itself. Daniel clearly indicates the direction of the Son’s coming. It is not toward His saints, nor even toward earth.

Daniel describes the Son of man as coming “
to
the Ancient of Days.” When He comes, He is “presented
before
Him” (7:13). The Son is traveling to the Father in Heaven for the ceremonial bestowal of His Kingdom. This is critical for our interpretation and will be crucial if we are properly to understand Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse.

This interpretation was the understanding of the early Church. Lactantius has been dubbed the “Christian Cicero” for his defense of Christianity around the beginning of the fourth century. He clearly understood that this passage spoke of a trip
to
the Father by Christ when he connected Daniel’s vision to Psalms 110:1. “The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool’ ” (
TED
, XLVII). He wrote of it as though it were something, not to be defended, but commonly understood in his day.

So the
what
question is answered in a way few of us probably expected. This prophecy does not describe the coming of the Son of man back to earth at all! Rather, this prophecy concerns the time when Jesus is recognized as the victor over sin because of the Cross. He is publicly given what is rightfully His: God’s Kingdom.

Where does this coming occur? The entire scene could very well have occurred in Heaven. In fact, since that is generally where we would expect the throne of the Ancient of Days to be, that is the primary location in view.

However, we have already noted that Jesus applied this prophecy to Himself before the Sanhedrin. In doing so, He gave us a few more tidbits of information about this event. Here is what our Lord said at His trial: “I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven” (Matt. 26:64).

Jesus told the men judging Him that they would
see
the coming foretold by Daniel. Since the Sanhedrin’s court was not in Heaven, but in Jerusalem, Jesus is expanding the venue of Daniel’s vision.

At the very least, we can assume that while the actual coming occurred in Heaven, the Sanhedrin would witness convincing evidence of it in Jerusalem. Some undeniable evidence that Jesus was recognized by God as the victor in Heaven must be seen by the rulers who condemned Jesus to death. This means that this cannot possibly be a future event for us in the twenty-first century, because the men of the Sanhedrin have been dead for thousands of years.

We have already started to answer the
when
part of our investigation. This event, this recognition of the victory of Jesus, must occur within the lifetimes of the men who condemned Jesus for blasphemy. Significantly, Jesus made this prediction after the Jewish leadership had decisively rejected His Kingship.

Since Heaven is outside our earthly sequential time line, the bestowal of God’s Kingdom there could easily have preceded the earthly, public evidence. Since we are talking about God’s recognition of Christ as King of the Kingdom, most Christians would agree that it occurred in Heaven at the Transfiguration or Ascension. In fact, the Liturgy of the Church connects this prophecy with the Transfiguration.

This understanding certainly does satisfy the details of Daniel. Christ received His Kingdom as a result of the work accomplished in His first advent. Yet Jesus extended Daniel’s relatively private event in Heaven to include another earthly event that the Sanhedrin could witness. Since He made His prophecy after the Transfiguration, and since the Sanhedrin were not privy to Christ’s Ascension, He must have been referring to another event—quite a public event which Christ could assure the Sanhedrin they would “see.” Yet this undeniable evidence of the Son of man’s victory must have occurred within the generation of the Sanhedrin.

The riddle of the “coming” in Daniel’s vision is coming into focus. The lifetime of the Sanhedrin overlaps with the time frame of this vision in Daniel. Daniel has been describing the little horn, which symbolizes Nero. Was there any public evidence that Jesus was the spiritual victor over the Old Covenant and its leadership during the times of Nero? Hold on to that question, because the answer is an emphatic yes.

I can almost hear you gasp, “Wait just one cotton-pickin’ minute! Are you implying that we must believe that the second coming of Christ occurred in 70 A.D.?”

Of course not. In fact, that belief would be soundly and correctly condemned as heresy by all Catholics and most Protestants.